Nathan Sean Wheeler v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 25, 2023
• Docket: 07-22-00361-CR
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-22-00361-CR

NATHAN SEAN WHEELER, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

On Appeal from the 108th District Court Potter County, Texas Trial Court No. 076428-E-CR, Honorable Douglas R. Woodburn, Presiding

July 25, 2023 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PARKER and YARBROUGH, JJ.

In November of 2018, Nathan Sean Wheeler, Appellant, pleaded guilty to the

offense of assault on a family or household member.1 Because Wheeler had been

previously convicted for an offense of assault against a family or household member, the

alleged offense was enhanced to a third-degree felony.2 The trial court accepted the plea

1 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(a).

2 See TEX. PENAL CODE ANN. § 22.01(b)(2)(A). bargain and placed Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for a period

of four years. The trial court modified the terms of Appellant’s community supervision on

two occasions ordering him to receive drug abuse treatment. In June of 2022, the State

filed a motion to proceed with adjudication of guilt, alleging multiple violations of the terms

and conditions of Appellant’s community supervision.

At a hearing on the motion, Appellant entered a plea of “true” to all of the State’s

allegations. The trial court admonished Appellant and heard evidence. At the close of

the hearing, the trial court determined that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions

of his community supervision, adjudicated him guilty of the original offense, and assessed

his punishment at three years’ confinement. In presenting this appeal, counsel for

Appellant has filed an Anders3 brief in support of a motion to withdraw. We grant

counsel’s motion and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Counsel has certified that he has conducted a conscientious examination of the

record and, in his opinion, the record reflects no reversible error upon which an appeal

can be predicated. Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 406 (Tex.

Crim. App. 2008). In compliance with High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 813 (Tex. Crim.

App. [Panel Op.] 1978), counsel has discussed why, under the controlling authorities,

there are no reversible errors in the trial court’s judgment. In a letter to Appellant, counsel

notified him of his motion to withdraw; provided him with a copy of the Anders brief and

appellate record; and informed him of his right to file a pro se response. See Kelly v.

State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (specifying appointed counsel’s

3 See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967).

2 obligations on the filing of a motion to withdraw supported by an Anders brief). By letter,

this Court also advised Appellant of his right to file a pro se response to counsel’s Anders

brief. Appellant has not filed a response. The State has not filed a brief.

By his Anders brief, counsel discusses areas in the record where reversible error

may have occurred but concludes that the appeal is frivolous. We have independently

examined the record to determine whether there are any non-frivolous issues that were

preserved in the trial court which might support an appeal, but we have found no such

issues. See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988);

In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 409; Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1969). Following our careful review of the appellate record and counsel’s brief, we

agree with counsel that there are no plausible grounds for appeal.

Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.4

Judy C. Parker Justice

Do not publish.

4 Counsel shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send Appellant a copy of the

opinion and judgment, along with notification of Appellant’s right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. This duty is an informational one, not a representational one. It is ministerial in nature, does not involve legal advice, and exists after the court of appeals has granted counsel’s motion to withdraw. In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 411 n.33.